Is the term "Protestant" derogatory?

[Cat_Herder]

So, you are saying that what happens here on earth affects the Church Triumphant too?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1087&pictureid=8323

If men of the CC, or Orthodox, or any other group improperly understand the teachings of Christ for a time, that doesn’t in any way mean that Christ didn’t keep His promise to His Church,

[BIBLEDRB]John 3:16[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Tim 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Isa 55:11[/BIBLEDRB]

“All men” and “the world”, according to you, does not include those who lived for a good 1,000 years or so before the Reformation.

That doesn’t sound like something Jesus would allow.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Hmm. Let’s search for a person who holds that a lay Christian can confect the sacrament of the eucharist. And sort him out properly.

Our two priests are out of town this coming Sunday. So our deacon (not a layman, but not ordained to confect the sacrament) will distribute the Mass of the Pre-Sanctified.

GKC

With all due respect to them, by whose authority are these men priests and deacons? The Queen’s? Since when does Caesar have authority over the Church?

 

[JonNC]

“All men” and “the world”, according to you, does not include those who lived for a good 1,000 years or so before the Reformation.

That doesn’t sound like something Jesus would allow.

I suspect you may not know what I mean by “all men” and “the world”. So, to avoid this getting personal, and admitting it is way off topic, I think I’ll exit the conversation.

Peace,
Jon

 

[GKC]

With all due respect to them, by whose authority are these men priests and deacons? The Queen’s? Since when does Caesar have authority over the Church?

Heavens, no. We have nothing to do with the Queen (God bless 'er).

These men are priests and deacons (and bishops) in the normal fashion, ordained/consecrated by bishops, in apostolic succession, using the usual valid matter, form, intent, etc.

You know, like your guys.

Do you need an explanation about the Queen? Or about the Church of England?

GKC

 

[Cat_Herder]

Heavens, no. We have nothing to do with the Queen (God bless 'er).

These men are priests and deacons (and bishops) in the normal fashion, ordained/consecrated by bishops, in apostolic succession, using the usual valid matter, form, intent, etc.

I’m not sure about that because…

Do you need an explanation about the Queen? Or about the Church of England?

GKC

… No, but I would like an explanation about what Edward VI and his contemporaries did to your sacramental rites.

 

[GKC]

I’m not sure about that because…

… No, but I would like an explanation about what Edward VI and his contemporaries did to your sacramental rites.

Not sure about it? Of course you are (should be) sure about it. You got the word, in 1896.

His contemporaries. Eddie was way too young.

As to what, nothing much, and that little changed in 1662. Or, to put it another way, it depends on who you ask.

GKC

 

[Cat_Herder]

Not sure about it? Of course you are (should be) sure about it. You got the word, in 1896.

His contemporaries. Eddie was way too young.

As to what, nothing much, and that little changed in 1662. Or, to put it another way, it depends on who you ask.

GKC

As I recall, Eddie and company (mostly Thomas Cramner) made the Church of England Calvinist. Calvinists hold to Presbyterian polity. Thus there were no longer bishops in the sense of successors from the Apostles with authority to ordain clergy.

Does that sound about right?

 

[GKC]

As I recall, Eddie and company (mostly Thomas Cramner) made the Church of England Calvinist. Calvinists hold to Presbyterian polity. Thus there were no longer bishops in the sense of successors from the Apostles with authority to ordain clergy.

Does that sound about right?

My mistake. You might not know what Apostolicae Curae says.

GKC

 

[Big_Dummy]

Yep

 

[Cat_Herder]

My mistake. You might not know what Apostolicae Curae says.

GKC

Well, here is what it says.

And it’s pretty much what I said: the CoE got rid of bishops. Since that is where your clergy got their orders, they only got what the bishop-less CoE had to give. Which is unfortunately nothing.

I hope you don’t blame the Catholic Church for your own communion going Calvinist and losing its orders. Leo XIII was the messenger. He didn’t do the damage.

 

[GKC]

Well, here is what it says.

And it’s pretty much what I said: the CoE got rid of bishops. Since that is where your clergy got their orders, they only got what the bishop-less CoE had to give. Which is unfortunately nothing.

I hope you don’t blame the Catholic Church for your own communion going Calvinist and losing its orders. Leo XIII was the messenger. He didn’t do the damage.

Figured you were off looking for it.

No mention of Calvinist in AC, except talking about the French Calvinist gentleman, which is not the point of the Bull.

What is says is that through adoption of an invalid form in the Ordinal (no mention of sacerdotal sacrifice) and through an assumed invalid intent, in using that form, the Apostolic succession was broken, not that the CoE got rid of bishops. There were still bishops about who had been consecrated with Pontificale Romanum. No point is given for this, but it is usually taken to be in 1559, with the consecration of Archbishop Parker. Both points (intent and form) have to be taken together, since there existed (and still do) Rites which everyone says convey valid orders, validly, which likewise do not mention sacrifice.

Intent, as the Bull says, is rarely assessed, it being an interior state. If other sacramental parts are not questionable, it is normally assumed that intent is valid
also; that is, facere quod facit eccelsia. Unless something permits a determinatio ex adiunctus. In AC, that is taken to be use of the form, as constructed by whom, and when, it was.

It is not a totally unreasonable point. To see it argued well, read Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION. To see it opposed, (IMO, successfully) see Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD.

The subject is one that bears a certain similarity to Henry’s Great matter, in that is has political and theological and personal aspects. To see these at work, try Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID. I’ve found these three books, in my 10 years of reading on the matter (so to speak) are the best treatments I have found, on both sides.

After considering such things, one can move on to considering the impact of the joint consecrations between the OC-Utrecht and Anglicans, post 1932, and the same between the PNCC and Anglicans, post 1946, with the infusion of their episcopal lines.

In all, I certainly urge you to affirm what the RCC requires you to affirm (and that was emphasized by then Cardinal Ratzinger, in 1998), on the subject. Anglicans will likely affirm something else.

No, I’m not blaming the RCC for the status of Anglican orders. Though I might have a word with Herbert, Cardinal Vaughan, given a chance.

GKC

 

[Hboggs]

:nope: Not really. It’s a historical term to be honest with you. It’s just that a lot of Non-Denominational Evangelical Christians don’t like to be known as “Protestant” because they want to be free of labels, since to a lot of them since Protestantism is a denomination/a label/a church division they don’t use the word “Protestant”. And would rather be known as just “Christian”

Well, I’ve got to sort of disagree! The word “Protestant” clearly serves to differentiate from “Catholic”…and trust me when I say they (formerly one myself) want a wide separation between the two.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s the validity of the holy orders of the confecting sacerdotal minister that matters, along with the form, intent and matter, as with all sacraments. Transubstantiation is the description /explanation of what occurs, when the eucharist is validly confected.

True and the intent has to be in line with what the Church believes. For example, an atheist, who himself may not believe in baptism, nevertheless can perform a valid baptism as long as he does it the prescribed way of the Church. I don’t see how a Protestant minister using his own formular or translation of a formula can confect the Sacrament. In the 60’s even Catholics were doubting their own priests when they were reciting an all-English canon. (Look under Omlor and others.)

 

[AmateurPianist]

Is it bad to use the term “Protestant”? On another thread someone said that it was. I have never thought of it as such and am wondering if I should continue using the term. If it is derogatory should I use non-Catholic Christians instead or something else?

Well I am not one to easily take offense, so I don’t care.

But it really is not how I think of myself,

Let’s take it in order.

First and foremost I am a follower of Jesus Christ.

Second a am a member of the local fellowship which I believe God would have me in.

Third the local fellowship is a part of a larger fellowship (Assemblies of God).

I really do not think of myself in terms of what I am not.

There are say 20 churches in the area in which I live. Logically I am not 19 of them.

Just because I am “not” any of the other 19 churches, it does not mean I am protesting them. So “protest” is sort of an inaccurate description on how I view myself.

But at the same time, I realize Protestant is a valid word for a certain grouping of Christian organizations so I do not take offense.

 

[GKC]

True and the intent has to be in line with what the Church believes. For example, an atheist, who himself may not believe in baptism, nevertheless can perform a valid baptism as long as he does it the prescribed way of the Church. I don’t see how a Protestant minister using his own formular or translation of a formula can confect the Sacrament. In the 60’s even Catholics were doubting their own priests when they were reciting an all-English canon. (Look under Omlor and others.)

What’ll I find if I look under Omlor?

The atheist, in order to perform the valid baptism, would also have to use the proper form, matter and subject. But the valid minister can be an atheist, as you say, providing the intent is to do “whatever the Church does” (not believes: facere quod facit ecclesia). Intent is really the simplest of the criteria to meet. An atheist saying or thinking that he intended to do whatever the silly ceremony is that these people do, will suffice.

I don’t see how a protestant minister could do that either.

GKC

Added: OK. I got Omlor.

GKC

 

[Cheshangle]

Well, I’ve got to sort of disagree! The word “Protestant” clearly serves to differentiate from “Catholic”…and trust me when I say they (formerly one myself) want a wide separation between the two.

I don’t trust you. As a church-going Anglican I can state categorically that my communion does not want “a wide separation”.

On the other hand, unfortunately, many of the RCs here seem to want one. .

 

[Cheshangle]

So then there are objective characteristics for eggman-ship. I can’t just walk up to the grocer and say I am the eggman, give me all your eggs.

What then is the authority for lay Christians to celebrate the Lord’s Supper? Not the Bible, as no one who is a non-elder is ever shown doing so.

In my church there is no authority for laymenn to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Only an ordained priest may do so.

And, incidentaly, I do not “rule out the Living Presence”.

 

[Cheshangle]

As I recall, Eddie and company (mostly Thomas Cramner) made the Church of England Calvinist. Calvinists hold to Presbyterian polity. Thus there were no longer bishops in the sense of successors from the Apostles with authority to ordain clergy.

Does that sound about right?

Hold on. So we’ve moved on from “Henry VIII founded the CofE” to “Edward VI did”. But from 1553-58 England was a RC country. When Elizabeth became Queen she was the Protestant Queen of a RC country. It was under her that the CofE as we know it came into being.

 

[Hboggs]

I don’t trust you. As a church-going Anglican I can state categorically that my communion does not want “a wide separation”.

On the other hand, unfortunately, many of the RCs here seem to want one. .

I spent nearly 30 years in the A/E church, as you describe yourself. I got out when I finally realized that the church’s theology was simply “anything goes”; the ordination of women as deacons and priest; the ordination of openly gay women and men priests; the ordination of women as bishops, and finally the ordination of “openly gay” women as bishops. Truth and morality is not subject to majority vote and that has proven the downfall of the ECUSA. Sins of people within a church and officially sanctioned sins of a church are simply not comparable. Your “communion” is separated theologically as far as the “east if from the west”. USA vs. Africa is one example.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

We do not protest against the one true church.

Depends how you view the church.

We consider ourselves members of it. We do not protest against your orders or consider them invalid. But you protest against ours.

From your point of view Catholics do. But keep in mind I’m not Catholic yet.

Similarly we acknowledge our debt to our (older) beloved sister church.

I agree.

But I feel this thread is getting off topic, so I’m heading out.

God Bless.